On September 28, 2025, we filed a comprehensive reply brief demonstrating that President Donald Trump has defaulted on individual capacity claims in our lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations through coordinated platform suppression. #96 in Richards v. X Corp (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-00916) – CourtListener.com
The Core Issue: Trump Never Responded Personally
When served at Mar-a-Lago on July 11, 2025, Trump had 21 days to respond through private counsel to claims alleging his personal $300 million quid pro quo arrangement with Elon Musk -- and involvement in censoring Tommy Richards X account due to pro-Catholic bias. That deadline passed on August 1, 2025. Trump filed nothing.
Instead, Department of Justice attorneys appeared without statutory authorization. Federal law explicitly prohibits DOJ from representing government officials in constitutional violation cases: "does not extend or apply to a civil action against an employee of the Government—(A) which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2)(A).
Why This Matters: Individual vs. Official Capacity
The Supreme Court established in Kentucky v. Graham that individual and official capacity claims are legally distinct. Personal capacity suits seek individual liability for personal conduct. No institutional appearance can cure a personal default.
The conduct alleged—Trump's personal campaign financing arrangement with Musk, staged obstruction of justice, and coordination to suppress religious expression—falls outside any legitimate presidential function. This requires personal accountability through private counsel, not institutional defense by DOJ.
DOJ's Contradictory Timeline
DOJ participated substantially in July with a 22-page brief opposing our TRO motion. They then remained silent for 46 days, never responding to the lawsuit (complaint)—through both the individual defendant deadline (August 1) and the government defendant deadline (September 9). Only when we obtained default against Linda Yaccarino in related litigation (#13 in Richards v. Yaccarino (N.D. Tex., 3:25-cv-01863) – CourtListener.com) did DOJ suddenly claim service defects.
Federal courts consistently hold that defendants waive service objections through substantial participation followed by strategic delay. DOJ's conduct demonstrates consciousness of service combined with tactical evasion.
The Legal Standard is Clear
Federal Rule 55(a) mandates entry of default when a defendant "has failed to plead or otherwise defend." Trump failed to file any personal answer to individual capacity allegations within the mandatory deadline. Under controlling precedent, this default cannot be cured by unauthorized institutional representation.
The brief demonstrates multiple independent grounds supporting default: DOJ's lack of statutory authority, waiver through substantial participation, forfeiture through unreasonable delay, and the fundamental distinction between personal and institutional liability.
What Happens Next
The Court will now decide whether basic procedural rules apply equally to all defendants—including presidents. The legal standards are straightforward: defendants must respond personally to individual capacity claims within mandatory deadlines, and no institutional appearance can substitute for required personal accountability.
Our comprehensive reply brief, supported by extensive Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, demonstrates why entry of default is legally required under these undisputed facts.
Richards v. X Corp, 3:25-cv-00916 – CourtListener.com
No comments:
Post a Comment